Automatic speed limits possible as safety measure

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: The FIA is looking for a way to impose speed limits on drivers for safety reasons when necessary.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Formula One considering automatic speed limits (Reuters)

“Formula One is planning to impose automatic speed limits as part of safety measures to prevent any recurrence of the sort of accident that has left French driver Jules Bianchi fighting for his life in Japan.”

Jules Bianchi: concerns grow as family gather at his hospital bedside (The Guardian)

“His brother and sister, Tom and Melanie Bianchi, arrived in Japan late Thursday and joined their parents, Philippe and Christine, at the Mie General Medical Centre in Yokkaichi.”

FIA to meet F1 teams to discuss Japan (Crash)

“The FIA is set to meet with the F1 teams to discuss the events of the Japanese Grand Prix and to attempt to find a way of controlling speeds in yellow flag conditions.”

Mercedes engine appeals to Grosjean (Autosport)

“It [the engine deal] certainly makes things look more attractive around here.”

Wolff “surprised” as Horner reveals details of meeting (Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog)

“We had a strategy group this morning, and what we discuss in strategy group meetings is what it says, strategy, and not something that should go to the public.”

Horner: Never say never on Seb (Sky)

“And asked if he could ever envisage Vettel returning to the team one day, Horner replied: “In this business, you never know. Who would have thought that Kimi [Raikkonen] would have gone back to Ferrari after they paid him to leave?”

‘I’m praying like crazy for Jules’ (BBC)

Lewis Hamilton: “When I was nine years old, I saw a young driver die when I was racing in karts. A good friend of mine who was a good friend of his stopped racing, but that has never been something that has entered my mind.”

Why are we in Russia for this grand prix? (The Telegraph)

“Ecclestone and Todt’s favourite refrain, that F1 is not a political sport, has been blown into oblivion by Putin’s very direct involvement. The thorn in the West’s side has made it an event of shameless political theatre, orchestrated to boost his prestige at home and abroad. All major sporting events have a political overtone, but few are as blatant as this.”

A Challenge for Russia and Formula One (The New York Times)

“Amid Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s perestroika policies in the late 1980s, [Bernie Ecclestone] was briefly involved in a plan to build a racetrack at the Tushino airfield northwest of Moscow. That idea died as the Soviet Union broke up and a period of instability followed.”

It’s Mokpo all over again (ESPN)

“The Russian Grand Prix in its current location is Mokpo Mk II, a perfect symbol of F1’s unceasing dedication to repeating the same mistakes over and over and over again, always with the best of intentions. Can anyone say future white elephant?”

Installment of Haas F1 Team Sign (Haas via YouTube)

2014 Formula One Japanese Grand Prix (F1)

Video highlights from the race, including some new team radio messages described here.

Russian Grand Prix Betting: Red Bulls Could Grow Wings At Sochi

My Russian Grand Prix preview for Unibet.

Win F1 2014 by Codemasters

F1 2014, the official Formula One game by Codemasters, will be released next week for PS3, Xbox 360 and PC.

However you could win a copy before then if you make the best entry in this week’s round of the Predictions Championship. You’ll have to be quick, though – entries close when qualifying begins later today.

It’s free to play and the competition is open to everyone so make your prediction here now:

Tweets

Comment of the day

Is the effort by Mercedes’ rivals to change F1’s engine freeze restricts merely an attempt to punish their success?

Although in principle I support not having and engine freeze I think the way this is being done is typical of F1 and absolutely wrong.

If having an engine freeze is inherently wrong how come Ferrari and Red Bull only suddenly started campaigning for it now when they just happen to have done a worse job of designing their engines.

The engine freeze decision was taken at the right time (i.e. when the engine rules were established) and having done that this should not be revisited at the moment. The freeze should be reconsidered in terms of the end of the current freeze timetable.

This decision is not being taken in a sporting way but in a way designed to intentionally benefit two manufacturers at the expense of another and in that sense to make this decision now is akin to success ballast which is not something we want to see in F1.

If they really believe that an engine freeze is wrong then they should set a timetable for the freeze to be lifted some time at the end of the current phased freeze period which means the decision is taken at a time when it is not known who is likely to benefit most/least from the change.

What I don’t understand, most of all, is how the heck the FIA supported the unfreeze when cost control is supposed to be their big drive.
@JerseyF1

From the forum

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

The only Spanish driver to stand on the podium at a world championship race before Fernando Alonso was born on this day in 1928.

Alfonso Antonio Vicente Eduardo Angel Blas Francisco de Borja Cabeza de Vaca y Leighton, Marquis of Portago – more simply known as Alfonso de Portago – was born in London. Like Alonso, raced for Ferrari in F1. He shared a second place finish in the 1956 British Grand Prix with team mate Peter Collins, who took over his car during the race.

However the following year De Portago lost his life in a terrible crash during Italy’s Mille Miglia sports car race, which also killed his co-driver and ten spectators.

Image © Pirelli/Honda, Red Bull/Getty

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

48 comments on “Automatic speed limits possible as safety measure”

  1. Imposed speed limits sounds like a great idea, its fair for everyone and solves the problem without having to deploy the safety car every second lap

  2. Adding to the COTD, an unfreeze would lead to even more disparity between the works and the customer teams, whatever updates the engines have will go directly to the top 4 teams first and that means entertaining battles like Williams and Ferrari are having right now will be a thing of the past.

    1. The rules actually state all units works and customer must be identical, it’s the layout of all the support systems that is different between works and customer teams not the PU and associated elements. This is why Toto Wolff raised logistical concerns of being able to manufacture and incorporate new parts in all units supplied for a race weekend quickly enough to meet the regulatory requirements that all units must be identical.

    2. Rock: Paper is too powerful, we need a performance rebalance. Scissors are OK, though, so keep them as they are.

    3. I think they should’ve done the same thing as when they introduced V8 engines – let the development in the first year and freeze the engines from the second year onwards. Because these engines are very complex and need a bit of development at the beginning, but in the second year engines would even out and we’d have pretty much competetive order.

  3. So the once Renault team, now have Mercedes engines, how funny

    1. Mercedes was Honda not long ago. And it was BAR, it was Tyrrell.

  4. Yellow speed limits are something I’ve been thinking are needed for years, and never understood why they didn’t put them in. It all makes sense now, they were waiting for a severe accident to happen before being forced to do anything about it. This could have been prevented.

    1. That’s how it always goes unfortunately. People only act after a tragedy.

  5. Very neat Haas F1 logo and sign, reminds me of Sauber a little, but better.

    1. Kinda has F1 if its turned upside down ?

    2. The whole video reminds me a bit of another US based startup team wanting to show it really was getting going releasing a video of its premises @strontium. Lets hope this teams fares better …

      1. @bascb
        I was JUST about to post the exact same thing. I have a similar feeling about Haas as I had about USF1…

  6. I like what Gene Haas is doing. It’s clear that he’s serious about entering F1. I am a bit worried however. It seems to me that he isn’t starting as a small team, and then grow. It’s more like everything needs to be great from the start, entering directly into the midfield of the grid. It will be a massive achievement if he succeeds, but there sure is a huge risk for failure aswell. I really hope HAAS F1 Team will do well, it would be a great boost for the sport.

    1. @me4me The last time teams we had new teams coming in from scratch they started small and 4 years later look at them, one disappeared, other is firing half the employees and for the other 9th place in the WCC is like 1st!

      So yeah I also like that he’s throwing everything at it, you can’t realistically expect to grow year by year because you form a bad reputation as a backmarker team and then it starts a vicious cicle of no sponsors and no success, you could argue he doesn’t need sponsors but he does need the team to live up to the Haas brand repuation to justify all the money he’s putting into it.

  7. “Alfonso Antonio Vicente Eduardo Angel Blas Francisco de Borja Cabeza de Vaca y Leighton, Marquis of Portago”

    …now say that three times as fast as you can.

    1. is really easy :D

      1. haha I struggled with “Leighton”

    2. Is he named after a whole football team?!

  8. If Charlie and the Teams can agree on a “control room” activated speed limit then that would be great news,
    whether it be a full course limit, ie, every car no matter which part of track , or , specific sectors only so racing can continue elsewhere,

    Im thinking full course limits could be best for safety .

    Sector only limits means cars need to slow and drivers will be stopping like the pitlane speed limit line, possibly risking cars ploughing into the backs of other cars ?

    More safety for track workers

    Less safety cars and the huge % of wasted time unlapping cars, (Singapore 18 mins)

    obviously tracks with limited runoff will/may need different approaches,

    A sensible step forward though, getting the teams involved will produce better outcomes .

    1. Had the same thought about the possibility of causing another accident, however, why not just have the limiters to be applied at the exit of the pervious corner that way cars aren’t slowing dramatically into an accident but the race can continue in other parts of the track where it’s safe to race? Just a thought??

    2. This will be unpopular, but, if you’re a lap down by the time a safety event goes off, instead of unlapping yourself around the whole pack/track, you should be further limited and put at the back of the pack while maintaining your position by letting people pass you. Statistically, how many ‘unlapped’ drivers have been able to take a place back from those drivers which the Safety Car allowed to get near to? it must be closer to 0 than to a worthy percentage.

      1. The problem is not the chance of cars unlapping themselves, but the chance of cars very close to each other end up with 1 lap difference.

        For example: Let’s say Grosjean and Sutil are fighting for position with Sutil 2 seconds beghind. Then comes Hamilton overtakes Sutil just as someone crashes and prompts a SC. Now by your rules instead of still being fighting for position Sutil will be 1 lap down Grosjean and completely out of chance of improving. On the other hand Grosjean can have a pit, change tires, have a drive through, miss a corner and still would have no chance of losing his place.

        Speed limits would be best. Everybody keeps more or less the same position on the track and no time is lost with unlapping and so on.

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          11th October 2014, 8:39

          @paulk, problem is SC is never ‘fair’.
          Imagine HAM has overtaken everybody except ROS. His about to lap ROS when SC comes out. When SC comes in they are suddenly fighting for P1 again; all his hard fought advantage gone!

          And that is why I like the double yellow speed limit idea. Same impact on all. It is like neutralising the race in only a few sectors.

          1. True, SC is never fair, but going back to statistics a car lapping the whole field, or almost, is something very rare, if even possible nowadays, as the other example I mentioned happens, to some extent, every race.

            Anyway, as I said, I agree with you, speed limits looks like the best way to go forward.

  9. petebaldwin (@)
    11th October 2014, 1:28

    Well done to the FIA for making the right decision here by choosing a solution that takes the decision on how fast to go away from the drivers, protects both the drivers and the marshals and doesn’t artificially “reset” the race every time someone goes off.

  10. When a Yellow flag is appropriate all cars should be automatically be set to run on their Pit-Limiters and the pit lane should be closed to stop any driver changing tyres and gaining an advantage from the yellows. A 20 second gap to a rival would be much more advantageous at pit-limiter speeds and could enable a pit-stop, tyre change and still emerge in front of the competitor. Under yellow conditions no driver should be enabled to gain an advantage; this is the big drawback of a Safety Car being deployed it can artificially ruin a drivers strategy and upset a lead gained by raw talent and good decision making.

    1. This sounds like huge overkill to me. I’ll be honest, I rather enjoy the lottery factor that is involved with safety cars, it may not be the most fair situation however it often spices up the racing and generally makes it more entertaining to watch. If an idea like yours was implemented, then F1 would likely become a much more dull affair.

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      11th October 2014, 8:44

      Interestingly a 20sec gap will stay a 20sec gap as you propose, it does not matter at what speed you go (expect when going 0kph). Thus no need to close the pit.

      PS – this is not valid when the yellow flag is out the start-finish straight (i.e. parallel to the pit).

      1. In a normal pit stop the cars behind you are going at full speed so eat into your 20 second lead whilst you are going down the pit lane on the pit limiter: but if all cars on the circuit are on the pit limiter they will not be catching you whilst you are in the pit lane, they will only close-up by the length of time you are stopped to have tyres changed. So a 20 second lead when all are at pit-limiter speeds is not the same thing strategy-wise as a pit stop at normal racing speeds. So my preference is that the pit lane should be closed to prevent an advantage being gained by someone else’s accident, Safety Car periods are generally not liked because they make the race more of a lottery and less a matter driving skill to gain a position.

        1. i can see the teams look at whether the pit distance is shorter than the track, you may see car driving through the pits without stopping because its quicker than going round the track…

  11. I’m all for an engine freeze. But you can’t allow a new engine while there is a freeze. If Honda is allowed to join then the freeze must be null and void. The commend of the day fails to look at the big picture.

    1. Spot on!!
      ‘New power units’ and ‘cost cutting’ can’t exist in the same sentence.
      Let’s look at the bigger issue, the fact that if teams received the money from F1 they deserve, instead of Bernie pocketing it all, manufacturers would be begging to be a part of F1 as they would be making money as well as advertising their brand.

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      11th October 2014, 8:45

      Good point.
      Ferrari team should move from Ferrari engines to Fiat engines next year!

  12. This talk of remotely slowing down the cars is a recipe for disaster, when you’re balancing the car through a corner you really don’t want the engine to suddenly die. Not to mention considering the dodgy telemetry and radios we’ve seen in recent seasons I doubt it would be very reliable.

    Hopefully it’s just a pipe dream to placate the media until they’ve gotten over their hysteria, they don’t need to reinvent the wheel for this.

    1. It would probably be done in a straight, not during a corner; probably several pre-determined points in the track.

    2. It just needs to be driver operated within a 5 second window or else penalty. Pretty easy to do. Or else a gradual reduction in HP, not a sudden cut off. Would be fine.

    3. ColdFly F1 (@)
      11th October 2014, 8:50

      @george, simple to resolve. Just make sure that marshal-sectors that can be yellow-flagged cannot start mid corner.
      Make them all start just after a corner, and drivers than might have to brake (or keep speed) rather than accelerate.

    4. Whiting specifically said that they were looking at ways to slow down the cars without imposing an actual speed limit. So it doesn’t seem like they are contemplating the recipe for disaster that you mention.

      “It probably won’t be a speed limit as such but there will be I believe a way of controlling speed with complete certainty and complete clarity”

  13. I want F1 2014, but I know I’ll never get it for free :(

  14. Regarding the engine unfreeze, next year, each car can use only 4 no.s of each engine component before they start taking penalties. Does that mean each of the component can be developed only thrice? What if a new component is developed and one of the cars using that engine is already using the last of their quota, is the driver allowed to say no to using the new component? Then is it a problem that not all the works and customer cars of that manufacturer would be running different engines.

    1. yes, it opens all kinds of issues, as you mention.

  15. that indy car crash is terrifying! f1 may not be perfect, safety-wise (what motor racing is?), but the americans always seem to worlds behind.

    1. This was 1993. F1 was very much less safe at that point, as I’m sure you will know

  16. Horner made it clear in the press conference that there was an agreement earlier and Mercedes walked back on it, so Wolff shouldn’t be too surprised that Horner goes public.

  17. You guys to realise, they have just found the perfect excuse now as to why they can keep the Standing Restarts after a safety car…no one seems to have realised this! (I am a fan of standing restarts but almost 90% are not), which as a result should now make you guys much happier because you will be seeing far less of the Safety Car out and Standing Restarts, so in effect everyone wins…A bit of both worlds!

  18. Horner happy to have Vettel back ?

    SO would Franz Tost , and that aint gonna happen either!

Comments are closed.